• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



US Israel-Palestine policy

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,493
Times, when Jews were dictated where they can live and where they cannot, are over.
My condolences to all antisemites. :cool:
So people can live anywhere they choose on the planet? Not sure Mr. Trump would concur.
 
Last edited:


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Yeah because the "international community" told them such a concession would pave the way to peace. They withdrew their citizens and military from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria to try and put the peace process with the Palestinians back in motion after four bad years of terrorist attacks. And what did they get back in return?! Exactly?

And as to the other part of your repetitive allegations, this is just more distortion. Seemingly terminally entrenched in the anti Semitic Irish Left, no matter the efforts of historians to clarify the historical record. E.g.

Problem is Israel's carrots always have a sting in the tail, such as the Gaza blockade. Parallels with how Gladstone passed a Coercion Act to reassure Parliament he wasnt going soft on the Irish when he passed the 1882 Land act.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
Problem is Israel's carrots always have a sting in the tail, such as the Gaza blockade. Parallels with how Gladstone passed a Coercion Act to reassure Parliament he wasnt going soft on the Irish when he passed the 1882 Land act.
Your so called "sting in the tail" came only after two years of hope that the Palestinians would create a decent, peaceful state, only after Hamas took power, and began shipping in missiles from Iran, and Egypt were just as quick to also protect themselves from the threat and similarly impose a blockade.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
... and isolated, and utterly powerless, Palestinian enclaves in the rest.
I told you before what has been suggested is fully self-governing Emirates where each Emirate would independently decide their own form of government, make their own laws, educate their people, print their own currency if they wish, have their own media, and develop their own industry and commerce etc.

The thinking behind the proposal is that the tribe is the major corner stone of Middle Eastern society and particularly Palestinian culture - the tribes that populate Hebron, Jericho, Ramallah, Nablus, Tulkarem, Qalqilyah and Jenin are very different from each other. For example, a Palestinian woman from Ramallah will seldom marry a member of a rival tribe located in Nablus. They regularly fight among themselves. There is a weight of evidence that shows the concept of the nation-state as it exists in Europe is in fact alien to Middle Eastern culture.

It actually makes a lot of sense.
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,493
I told you before what has been suggested is fully self-governing Emirates where each Emirate would independently decide their own form of government, make their own laws, educate their people, print their own currency if they wish, have their own media, and develop their own industry and commerce etc.

The thinking behind the proposal is that the tribe is the major corner stone of Middle Eastern society and particularly Palestinian culture - the tribes that populate Hebron, Jericho, Ramallah, Nablus, Tulkarem, Qalqilyah and Jenin are very different from each other. For example, a Palestinian woman from Ramallah will seldom marry a member of a rival tribe located in Nablus. They regularly fight among themselves. There is a weight of evidence that shows the concept of the nation-state as it exists in Europe is in fact alien to Middle Eastern culture.

It actually makes a lot of sense.
How many Palestinians have endorsed this patronizing, Kiplingesque proposal? Most Arabs live in countries, however imperfect, not pathetic Bantustans. A tendency to intra-group marriage is no bar to nationhood - look at India. And what would these so-called ‘emirates’ actually control, i.e have the final say on, in their territory? They would not resemble, say, the UAE in any way. Let’s call a spade a spade here - this emirate/homeland/reserve model would mean an end to any possibility of a Palestinian state. Given our own history, I find it surprising that any Irishman would support it.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Your so called "sting in the tail" came only after two years of hope that the Palestinians would create a decent, peaceful state, only after Hamas took power, and began shipping in missiles from Iran, and Egypt were just as quick to also protect themselves from the threat and similarly impose a blockade.
Ismail Haniyeh repeatedly offered to talk about a two state solution and Israel ignored him. What happened then is the consequence of the failure of the Israeli government to talk to Hamas. While I despise Hamas' human rights record, I also despise those of the Sisi regime, whose coup Bibi welcomed.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
How many Palestinians have endorsed this patronizing, Kiplingesque proposal? Most Arabs live in countries, not in pathetic Bantustans. What would these so-called ‘emirates’ actually control, i.e have the final say on, in their territory? They would not resemble, say, the UAE in any way. At least be honest enough to say that this would mean an end to any possibility of a Palestinian state.
Yes, they would resemble the UAE.

And the so called Palestinian "leadership" quite clearly has never tried to represent the interests of ordinary Palestinians, considering their rejectionism, radicalism, and other aspects.

Anyway, it was generally the other Arab states who were the real impediment to peace, and Trump would have appeared to have got them all on side now, well apart from Iran and their useful tool leftists in the West.

And it's worth repeating, the Zionist side over the decades has repeatedly agreed to a compromise based on partitioning Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs—and, just as repeatedly, the Arab side has always rejected the two-state compromise formulas that have been proposed. So it was when the British Peel Commission proposed partition in 1937; so it was when the UN General Assembly proposed partition in November 1947; so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton proposed partition (a two-state solution) in 2000; and so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed partition to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in 2007–08. At each point in time, the Palestinian leader—Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Abbas—rejected the two-state offers and partition (as, consistently, has Hamas, the most powerful and popular of the Palestinian political factions).

And look at the position of BDS, they outright reject the two state solution, and let's be straight, the very existence of a Jewish state. So they brought that war, anyone with their eyes open can see it. They'll be beaten.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
Ismail Haniyeh repeatedly offered to talk about a two state solution and Israel ignored him. What happened then is the consequence of the failure of the Israeli government to talk to Hamas. While I despise Hamas' human rights record, I also despise those of the Sisi regime, whose coup Bibi welcomed.
Ah would you get the hell out of that, stop demonstrating your prejudice and stupidity. Have you ever actually listened to bloody Ismail Haniyeh?!

 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,493
Please
Yes, they would resemble the UAE.

And the so called Palestinian "leadership" quite clearly has never tried to represent the interests of ordinary Palestinians, considering their rejectionism, radicalism, and other aspects.

Anyway, it was generally the other Arab states who were the real impediment to peace, and Trump would have appeared to have got them all on side now, well apart from Iran and their useful tool leftists in the West.

And it's worth repeating, the Zionist side over the decades has repeatedly agreed to a compromise based on partitioning Palestine into two states, one for the Jews, the other for the Arabs—and, just as repeatedly, the Arab side has always rejected the two-state compromise formulas that have been proposed. So it was when the British Peel Commission proposed partition in 1937; so it was when the UN General Assembly proposed partition in November 1947; so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton proposed partition (a two-state solution) in 2000; and so it was when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed partition to Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, in 2007–08. At each point in time, the Palestinian leader—Husseini, Yasser Arafat, Abbas—rejected the two-state offers and partition (as, consistently, has Hamas, the most powerful and popular of the Palestinian political factions).

And look at the position of BDS, they outright reject the two state solution, and let's be straight, the very existence of a Jewish state. So they brought that war, anyone with their eyes open can see it. They'll be beaten.
I’m not defending Arab intransigence or BDS.

Please list the powers of these proposed ‘emirates’ so we can judge whether they resemble countries or emasculated county councils more closely.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
Please


I’m not defending Arab intransigence or BDS.

Please list the powers of these proposed ‘emirates’ so we can judge how much like actual countries or emasculated county councils they would be.
I did, above. They would have full powers.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Ah would you get the hell out of that, stop demonstrating your prejudice and stupidity. Have you ever actually listened to bloody Ismail Haniyeh?!

In 2006 he was talking about a two state solution.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
In 2006 he was talking about a two state solution.
Link? A Palestinian state beside another Muslim Arab majority state perhaps? And this was before they came to power?
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Link? A Palestinian state beside another Muslim Arab majority state perhaps? And this was before they came to power?

wikipedia said:
..... In December 2010, Haniyeh stated at a news conference in Gaza that "We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees." In addition, he said that if the Palestinian electorate approves such a peace agreement with Israel, his government will abide by it notwithstanding previous Hamas positions on the issue.[27] ....
 

Ardillaun

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
11,493
I did, above. They would have full powers.
Jaysus, their own currencies too. A little fanciful. Let’s make things simpler then: what would these entities NOT control e.g. airspace, water. They’re not going to be completely independent states after all and derogated functions could be taken back by Israel as it saw fit.
 
Last edited:

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
He also said explicitly at the time that such a truce would entail "no recognition of Israel and no concessions over any part of the land of Palestine."

This also in the context of basically insisting the Palestinian refugees overwhelm Israel.

And considering his well known entrenched radical Islamism it is pretty obvious that when a guy like him talks about a "truce" he is talking about the same type that Arafat did in his infamous South Africa speech post the Oslo signing. I.e.

"... This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it "Sulha Dania" [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this [Oslo] peace accord..."

(the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty was a 10-year truce agreed between Islam's Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca. However, two years later, Muhammad attacked and conquered Mecca.)
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,224
Yes well I recall in the NI peace talks in 1998 that until almost the last few days SF were reportedly talking about county councils in a United Ireland and were opposing a powersharing government (which they saw as an "internal settlement") but then in the last day or so they accepted powersharing and that a United Ireland wasnt going to come about without consent. If you think negotiators lay out their red lines before the talks have even started then you wouldn't make a very good negotiator.
 

kalipa

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
10,194
Your so called "sting in the tail" came only after two years of hope that the Palestinians would create a decent, peaceful state, only after Hamas took power, and began shipping in missiles from Iran, and Egypt were just as quick to also protect themselves from the threat and similarly impose a blockade.
It is a lie to say that the Gaza strip was only penalised after Hamas came to power.

Gaza: Isolation and control
Restrictions on the Gaza Strip are part of a sequence going back decades predating Hamas control, analysts say.

This summer marks an important but often overlooked anniversary in the history of the Gaza Strip. Thirty years ago, in June 1989, Israel imposed for the first time a magnetic-card system to restrict the exit of Palestinian residents. Anyone denied a card would be prevented from leaving.

While Israel's blockade of Gaza is often seen to have originated in 2006-2007 as a response to Hamas's rise to power, the isolation of the enclave in fact goes back three decades - and for many analysts, this historical perspective is essential for understanding today's developments.

"I think it is incredibly important to look at the wider context to understand what's going on today in Gaza," Tania Hary, executive director of Israeli human rights NGO Gisha, told Al Jazeera.

"Most people mistakenly believe that what's happening is a result of Hamas being in power, and that while the humanitarian crisis is an 'unfortunate' side effect, ultimately Israel has no choice."

In fact, human rights activists and scholars point out, the Israeli-imposed restrictions on the Gaza Strip are part of a sequence going back decades, predating Hamas control and rocket fire.

"The blockade is not an isolated event in Israel's policy towards Gaza," Sara Roy, a senior research scholar at Harvard University's Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, told Al Jazeera.

"From the beginning of the occupation in 1967, Israeli policy towards Gaza has been shaped by political considerations that deliberately restricted domestic economic development and structural reform in order to preclude the emergence of a Palestinian state," she added.

"The blockade can be understood as a part of this policy continuum."

According to Tareq Baconi, an analyst with International Crisis Group and author of Hamas Contained, "It is impossible not to view this blockade as a continuation of Israeli policies of pacification and isolation that go back to the founding of the state in 1948."

"Hamas is simply the fig leaf that allows Israel to sustain policies towards Gaza that had long informed its approach towards the strip, primarily driven by demographic reasons and for reasons that have to do with depoliticising the Palestinian struggle," he continued.

(continued)
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,657
Pretty incredible really that an academic puts their name to such utter stupidity. (Well, maybe not so incredible, I'm familiar enough with the motives involved at this stage.). Let's recall:

1948-1956 Egypt occupies Gaza in 1948 and creates a para-military police force under Muslim Brotherhood leadership and begins sponsoring 'fedayeen' raids into Israel.

1956-1967 Armed fedayeen groups propagate under Nasser's anti Semitic incitements in Gaza, conducting increasing raids into Israel, increasing tensions leading to the 1967 Six-Day War.

1967-2005 Gaza now under Israeli military OCCUPATION after the failed invasion of 5 Arab countries. (Previous fedayeen groups amagamate under the PLO retaining their autonomy, groups such as the PFLP headed by George Habash etc.)

2005 Israel WITHDRAWS ITS OCCUPATION assured by the "international community" that such an olive branch is necessary for resolution of the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians in Gaza now have their own de facto Palestinian state, every last Jew is withdrawn to make the state completely Judenrein as was stipulated, they now have their fate in their own hands, great celebrations ensue, etc.

2007 ISRAEL AND EGYPT INTRODUCE A BLOCKADE OF GAZA IN THE MONTHS AFTER HAMAS SEIZE CONTROL OF THE STRIP, after they win with Iran's help the Fatah–Hamas conflict and they then proceed to start smuggling in Iranian weapons, and state outright their rejection of any acceptance of the previous agreements made between Israel and the PA, including the Oslo Accords, and refuse to disavow violent actions, refuse any recognition of Israel, etc. etc.
 

font

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
159
The problem is that Israel is also expelling people to make way for these settlements. It isnt a victimless process they are pursuing. I would have the same criticism if another religious group were doing it, as my thread on the Uighur situation in China attests.
A part of the Palestinian Arabs left Israel as a result of a civil war, which they started, and the subsequent aggression of Arab countries. Your constant repetition, that all of them were expelled, only underlines your bias.
The conflict with Uighurs is a separatist conflict.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top